 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Electoral Administration Bill |
Electoral Administration Bill |
|
Column Number: 79 Standing Committee BThursday 17 November 2005(Morning)The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chairmen: Mr. Edward O'Hara, †Derek Conway†Bellingham, Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk) (Con) †Betts, Mr. Clive (Sheffield, Attercliffe) (Lab) †Binley, Mr. Brian (Northampton, South) (Con) †Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab) †Cairns, David (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland) †Devine, Mr. Jim (Livingston) (Lab) †Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con) †Harman, Ms Harriet (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs) †Heath, Mr. David (Somerton and Frome) (LD) †Johnson, Ms Diana R. (Kingston upon Hull, North) (Lab) †Keeley, Barbara (Worsley) (Lab) †Linton, Martin (Battersea) (Lab) †McGovern, Mr. Jim (Dundee, West) (Lab) †Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD) Robinson, Mr. Peter (Belfast, East) (DUP) †Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab) Geoffrey Farrar, Matthew Whittaker, Committee Clerks †attended the Committee [Derek Conway in the Chair]Electoral Administration Bill(Except clauses Nos. 9 to 18; any new clauses or new schedules relating to part 2 or part 3 of the Bill; any new clauses or new schedules relating to the procedure to be followed at an election on the death of a candidate; and any new clauses or new schedules relating to candidates standing in more than one constituency at an election.)9 amClause 27Amount of expenses which may be incurred by third partyQuestion proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Good morning, Mr. Conway. The Newspaper Society has brought to our attention the fact that subsection (5) will allow expenditure incurred before the defined elections period to count towards the prescribed total by virtue of its being deemed later to be in connection with expenditure during the election period, irrespective of whether the identity of the candidate was known at the time. The society is concerned that that will create so wide and uncertain an offence that it would be impossible for newspaper publishers or other third parties at risk under section 75(5) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to regulate their behaviour in such a way that they could avoid inadvertently falling foul of the law. That concern seems legitimate, and I should be grateful if the Minister were to consider the problem. The Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet Harman): I welcome you, Mr. Conway, to the Committee. It is difficult, by definition, to deal with unauthorised expenditure. Authorised expenditure can be attributed to the candidate, so it is straightforward. Unauthorised expenditure, however, is different territory. I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Clause 27 has two purposes. First, it clarifies an ambiguity about what types of expenditure are allowed by a third party under section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 on promoting or disparaging a candidate's election without the authority of the candidate, his election agent or persons authorised in writing by the election agent. Following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bowman v. UK, the Government amended section 75 of the 1983 Act by means of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 so as to increase the expenditure limit for unauthorised third parties. I Clause 27 is an attempt to clear that ambiguity. Expenditure by unauthorised third parties up to the levels already set in the 1983 Act will be allowed on holding public meetings or organising any public display; and issuing advertisements, circulars or publications, which is when newspapers would become involved. Those amendments will be retrospective, with effect from 16 February 2001. Secondly, clause 27 provides that expenditure incurred by a third party with the authorisation of the agent or candidate will count towards the candidate's own expenditure limit during the relevant period. The relevant period, as we shall discuss in a moment, is the four months ending with the date of poll, except for by-elections, when it begins on the day of the vacancy and ends on polling day. Those amendments provide clarification of the existing law and will fully meet the intentions of the ECHR judgement in the Bowman case. There are apparently some exceptions for the media, but I shall write to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) to clarify that point. Mr. Brian Binley (Northampton, South) (Con): Thank you, Mr. Conway. I am grateful to the Minister, but I seek clarification. Clause 27(3) states:
The right hon. and learned Lady said that that does not include advertising. If that is the case, I am perfectly happy. Ms Harman: I will have to clarify that. It will include advertising by an unauthorised third party, but I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Member for Huntingdon was referring to. I do not think that he was referring to advertising. There are two separate things. One is unauthorised advertising; the other is what newspapers write. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) has helpfully drawn our attention to subsection (3)(a), but I would like an opportunity further to clarify the matter. Question put and agreed to. Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 28Return as to election expensesQuestion proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Ms Harman: The clause gives the Electoral Commission greater flexibility in prescribing the form that candidates must use to submit their election expenses returns. It does so without reducing the amount of information that must be included in the return. The list of election expenses that are to form the basis of an election expense return are detailed in clause 29. The clause is necessary to deal with the current election expenses return procedures, which are complex and often result in confusion about election Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): Mr. Conway, I just wanted to make the point that simple verification would be welcomed by agents across the country. However, there is also the risk of further complexity as a result of the clause. It is important that the Electoral Commission speaks to all political parties throughout the process of revising the regulations to make sure that we are not making things worse. Ms Harman: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right. It would be a good idea not only for the Electoral Commission to consult people, but to do a dry run. Consulting the experts at party headquarters is one thing, but it is quite another for us simple folk out in the field to get things right. I will make sure that his views are conveyed to the Electoral Commission. Question put and agreed to. Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 29Meaning of election expenses for purposes of the 1983 ActMr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 29, page 30, line 38, at end insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in clause 29, page 32, line 33, after 'costs', insert
No. 57, in clause 29, page 33, line 24, at end insert—
Mr. Heath: The amendment deals with something that I clearly signalled on Second Reading ought to be looked at seriously. I want to say immediately that all parties will be affected, particularly in marginal constituencies, because all parties use similar techniques to reach electors. I am not aiming at one party or another, but particularly at the conduct of the large political parties. At the moment, I believe abuse goes on. Fairly large parts of expenditure avoid being included in the returns required from the agent in a specific constituency; specifically, communications from political parties addressed to electors, or delivered door to door, that clearly convey either a positive message about a party engaged in that election or a negative message about another party contesting the election, but that are not included within election expenses, simply because there is no reference to a specific candidate.
In my own, marginal constituency, in the last election I saw letters addressed to electors by the Conservatives, from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We retaliated in kind, not unexpectedly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) had much the same situation in his constituency. The point that I am making, which is not to score against other parties, is about a communication of any kind specifically addressed to an elector; specifically addressed, because we cannot sensibly apportion the cost of billboards, for instance. We accept that there is some national advertising, which might be more prominent in some constituencies rather than others, but is nevertheless a national campaign. To devise a system that allowed for apportionment of that within individual election expenses returns would be beyond us. However, communications within a specific constituency for named electors or by implication for named electors, because they are put through a specific door, are surely an election expense incurred in the prosecution of that particular election. For that to fall outside the present electoral laws seems perverse and hugely distorting of the intentions of having election expenses limits at all. There will still be abuses. I am not so naïve as to believe that my amendment would end all abuses. A very large industry has developed around phone canvassing, for instance. Very often, phone canvassers operate not only from premises outside the constituency in question but from far away. I understand that they sometimes operate even from call centres, which is counter-productive, as all the anecdotal evidence from my constituency suggests that someone ringing constituents from a long way away— |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 17 November 2005 |